On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:17:15 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
For example, the "Conditional operator" in D actually has a
higher priority than an assignment, but in C++ it's the same
and is evaluated right-to-left. So this expression would be
different in C++ and D:
a ? b : c = d
In
On Friday, 12 October 2018 at 13:15:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 10/12/18 6:06 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:17:15 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
[...]
That's https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14186
Wow, interesting that C precedence is different from
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:17:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:35:34 AM MDT James Japherson
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Certainly, major languages like C, C++, Java, and C# all do it
the way that D does, and they all have the same kind of
precedence for
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:17:15 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 21:57:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:09:14 PM MDT Jonathan Marler
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
On 10/12/18 6:06 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:17:15 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I had a look at the table again, looks like the ternary operator is on
there, just called the "conditional operator". And to clarify, D's
operator precedence is close to C/C++ but doesn't
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:17:15 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
I had a look at the table again, looks like the ternary
operator is on there, just called the "conditional operator".
And to clarify, D's operator precedence is close to C/C++ but
doesn't match exactly. This is likely a
On 10/11/18 9:16 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:29:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/11/18 7:17 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I had a look at the table again, looks like the ternary operator is
on there, just called the "conditional operator". And to
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 23:29:05 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/11/18 7:17 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I had a look at the table again, looks like the ternary
operator is on there, just called the "conditional operator".
And to clarify, D's operator precedence is close to
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
That's why shouldn't compose it like that.
It's been a constant source of bugs in C/C++ code:
On 10/11/18 7:17 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I had a look at the table again, looks like the ternary operator is on
there, just called the "conditional operator". And to clarify, D's
operator precedence is close to C/C++ but doesn't match exactly. This
is likely a result of the grammar
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 21:57:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:09:14 PM MDT Jonathan Marler
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
> Took me about an hour to track this one down!
>
> A + (B == 0) ? 0
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:35:34 AM MDT James Japherson via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Took me about an hour to track this one down!
>
> A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
>
> D is evaluating it as
>
> (A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
>
>
> The whole point of the parenthesis was to associate.
>
> I usually explicitly
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:09:14 PM MDT Jonathan Marler via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
>
> wrote:
> > Took me about an hour to track this one down!
> >
> > A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
> >
> > D is evaluating it as
> >
> > (A + (B == 0)) ? 0
On 10/11/2018 07:35 AM, James Japherson wrote:
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
Friends don't let friends use the ternary operator except in trivial cases.
This would be a good thing for a linter to check.
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
The whole point of the parenthesis was to associate.
I usually explicitly associate precisely because of
On 11/10/18 20:16, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson wrote:
In the ternary operator it should treat parenthesis directly to the
left as the argument.
I don't think parentheses are ever treated like that. They are
self-contained and don't affect
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
As it should.
The whole point of the parenthesis was to associate.
I usually explicitly associate
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
In the ternary operator it should treat parenthesis directly to
the left as the argument.
I don't think parentheses are ever treated like that. They are
self-contained and don't affect operators outside them.
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 14:35:34 UTC, James Japherson
wrote:
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
The whole point of the parenthesis was to associate.
I usually explicitly associate precisely because of
On 12/10/2018 3:35 AM, James Japherson wrote:
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
The whole point of the parenthesis was to associate.
I usually explicitly associate precisely because of this!
A + ((B == 0) ? 0
Took me about an hour to track this one down!
A + (B == 0) ? 0 : C;
D is evaluating it as
(A + (B == 0)) ? 0 : C;
The whole point of the parenthesis was to associate.
I usually explicitly associate precisely because of this!
A + ((B == 0) ? 0 : C);
In the ternary operator it should treat
21 matches
Mail list logo
